KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: In the decision, the Judge indicated that Applicant submitted no post-hearing matters.
In her appeal brief, Applicant provided an email that she sent to Department Counsel on April 7,
2017. The email had a file attached that apparently contained a number of documents. Given
these circumstances, we conclude the best resolution of this appeal is to remand the case to the
Judge for further processing consistent with the Directive. Adverse decision remanded.
CASENO: 15-05691.a1
DATE: 12/4/2017
DATE: December 4, 2017
In Re:
----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 15-05691
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro se
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On
April 20, 2016, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of Department of
Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing. 
On September 13, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
Administrative Judge Gregg A. Cervi denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant
appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant states that she submitted documentary evidence to the Judge that did not make it
into the record.  Although her assertion constitutes new evidence, which we are generally not
permitted to consider, we will consider such evidence on threshold issues such as due process.  See,
e.g., ISCR Case No.14-00812 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 8, 2015).
At the hearing, the Judge left the record open until February 28, 2017, for Applicant to
submit additional matters.  Tr. at 123.  The deadline for submitting matters was later extended to
April 10, 2017.  In the decision, the Judge indicated that Applicant submitted no post-hearing
matters.  In her appeal brief, Applicant provided an email that she sent to Department Counsel on
April 7, 2017.  The email had a file attached that apparently contained a number of documents. 
Given these circumstances, we conclude the best resolution of this appeal is to remand the case to
the Judge for further processing consistent with the Directive. 
Order
The Decision is REMANDED.    
Signed: Michael Ra’anan              
Michael  Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields             
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy                
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board